Brisbane Courier (Qld. : 1864 - 1933), Thursday 26 September 1889, page 7


THE GREENLEES MURDER.

Tnn Boura SEE. ROMANCE.

In the High Commissioner's Court at Suva, Fiji, on the 10th August, before the Hon. H. S. Berkeley, Chief Judicial! Commissioner, judgment was given on the points raised by Mr. Scott, on behalf of Captain Weaver, who was charged with the murder of Captain Greenlees, of the Colonist, in arrest of judgment, for want of jurisdiction, on the grounds that it appears on the face of the record that the prisoner and the deceased were both British subjects, and that it appears on the face of the record that the offence of which the prisoner had been convicted was committed on a British ship, in the harbour of Havannah, Sandwich Island, and not in the Island of Sandwich as charged in the indict-ment. His Honour had no doubt that, under the provisions of the Western Pacific Order in Council, 1877, the offence of which the prisoner had been convicted was cognisable in that court. The motion for arrest of judgment therefore failed, and the prisoner was brought up for sentence.

When asked by the registrar (says the Fiji Times) if he had anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon him.

Captain Weaver said, addressing the Judge : You have asked me if I have anything to say. I have a few words to which I request you will be good enough to give that attention you gave to the witnesses. In the first place I happen to be an Englishman peculiarly. That is, not a British subject undergonoral tone, but an Englishman born and bred, whose ancestors obtained Magna Charta and therefore, by the right of Magna Charta, I demand a right of trial by jury. With regard to the trial and what you said to the assessors, sir, you take exception to several matters which I really think I have a right to draw your attention to. In the first place, with regard to the witnesses in Sydney, you suggest why did not some of my friends come down to Suva ? Perhaps you are not aware that the only one who could have sworn to the insanity of any member of my family was Mr. Richard Weaver, who is over 70 years of ago, and shaky; and he is the only one in the southern hemisphere who could give testimony as to what happened in Great Britain. Secondly, you dwelt upon the £160 not being paid to Mr. Phillips. I have the receipts and all the requisite documents to prove that the £160 was paid, and proceedings in the Civil Court are now being taken against him by my attorney in Sydney. I will not dwell much further, your Honour, except on the foot with regard to the defence set upon my behalf I particularly wished to call fuller evidence only we had been advised, I may say, by my Sydney solicitor, who laid the matter before the Chief Justice, Sir Frederick Darley, and Judges in Chambers, who unanimously declared there was no jurisdiction, and therefore we only went to what we considered the requisite expense without spending more than £200 or £300. Otherwise I was prepared to show it was a moral impossibility for me to have been the individual who shot William Greenlees. With regard to that subject your Honour spoke of the motive and spoke of a quarrel having taken place the evening before,

it was my intention to have brought in the evidence of the mate and Gustafssen at the

preliminary inquiry at Havannah Harbour, before the Deputy Commissioner. These witnesses solemnly swore, in reply to questions by Captain Bosanquet, that no such quarrel ever took place, and the only words that were said that night had reference to the ship being ready for sea, and to some matters which had to be done owing to the drunkenness of the man M'Cloy and my remark about " in the morning was what any man would have said to his man of business about something to be seen to in the morning. Therefore that motive is done away with, because they either told the truth at one time or at the other; and to bear out the evidence given at the first trial it must be borne in mind that thirty-six hours after the event their minds were fresh, and in a fortnight they had time to concoct a story. Had such a quarrel taken place as they said, the cook would have been roused by the talk. Now, morally, I could not have done it without being two physlcaljpeople, two distinct corporal identities. According to the distinct evidence of the cook and the witness Gustafssen, both of whom must have been within two feet of me at the time, OB the cabin was only four feet broad on the floor, there were two revolvers. One was of white metal, which could be seen as far as from one end of this court to another, even in a dark place. The other revolver is a little one, and buck, new, and shiny. The witness Gustafsen and the cook emphatically and positively swore to my standing in front of William Greenlees with the white revolver, only 25 (j. from them, and shooting that man in front with three bullets so quickly there was no time to interfere, and at the same time standing behind him and catching him in his arms when he fell backward. Such a thing I think I have shown your Honour is imposed le unless I have two bodies. First as to motive, second as to actual fact. You will say, "Who did it" I contended contrariwise to my counsel, ' who suggested that if I set up the defence I was not the man the onus would rest on me to prove who did it. I think your Honour will agree with me the onus rests with the Crown? Am I not correct, your Honour? I therefore say I am unable to say, and even if it were

necessary, who did it I have no cognisance of what took place that night. I am not speaking as to sanity, and I would not take up your time with it. First I have shown the motive was false, and next, by the Crown's evidence, it was a moral impossibility for me to have been the man who shot Greenlees. Now, your honour, I have finished.

In passing sentence of death his Honour said, You have been found guilty on an indict-ment charging you with the murder of one William Greenlees, to which indictment it -was pleaded on your behalf that you were insane at the time you committed the act charged against you. During the trial it was not suggested for a moment that any other hand than yours had fired the shots that caused the death of the man Greenlees. You now say it was impossible that you could have been the man. The evidence, in my view, shows a deliberate intention on your part to kill this man Greenlees, and it shows an organised plan to conceal your crime and to escape punishment. The plea of insanity that you raised has been carefully examined. Two assessors and myself have come to the conclusion that that plea was not supported that you were a perfectly sane man at the time you committed that does that you did commit it is that you knew what you were doing that you intended to kill Captain Greenlees, and know you were breaking the law and endeavoured to screen yourself from punishment by concealing his body, and endeavouring to put the officer of the man-ofwar's boat off the Boers by giving a false explanation of the noise of the firing heard. Two other assessors have come to the conclusion that at the time you were suffering temporarily from insanity. Their views will no communicated to the proper authority; but I cannot hold out to you any hope or expectation that their views-being as I take it unwarranted by evidence will have any effect on the sentence it is my duty to pass upon you.

[The death sentence has since been commuted to imprisonment for life.]